When someone doesn't want to face his or her boss, employees, or the public, do you take that as a bad sign? I do. And sometimes that problem shows up through the annual shareholders' meeting.
That's why it's shameful that Goldman Sachs
Typically these meetings are the only opportunity for shareholders to get direct contact with and question management and board members. They also unintentionally provide a forum for people to vent their wrath at poor corporate citizens. When something is amiss, these meetings can be embarrassing and grueling for management.
In recent years, shareholder meetings were forums for protests about executive pay and mortgage practices at Goldman Sachs, mortgage foreclosure practices at JPMorgan, and pay practices (executives versus union employees) at American Airlines. Moving their meetings this year resulted in fewer protestors. I doubt it was a coincidence.
Moving the meeting is not an original idea. In 2003 Hewlett-Packard
Courage under fire
GM isn't the only company willing to expose itself despite missteps. Bank of America
Anyone avoiding his or her boss (management avoiding shareholders) is a bad sign. And studies show that companies known for being a good place to work or for social responsibility outperform the market. Thus, an annual shareholders meeting structured to evade shareholders, employees, or protestors -- e.g., moved to a location that will reduce attendance -- is a red flag for investors.
What do you think: Is management at Goldman, JPMorgan, or AMR ducking big problems? An easy way to stay on top of market developments is The Motley Fool's free new My Watchlist feature. You can get up-to-date news and analysis by adding these stocks to your Watchlist now: